Declassified in Part - Sanitized CopyApproved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8C01297R00-670012(1)011-2 ( /LA/L._ le/r/V / DEPARTMENT OF STATE TELEGRAM MFG. 9/69 28183 CABLE SECRETARIAT DISSEM BY .5(..) PER # TOTAL COPIES: Z i. FILE RF. REPROBY STAT LIMITED OFFICIAL USE HCF2 60 PAGE 01 QUITO 00831 022232Z gg ACTION ARA-2 0 INFO, O'OT-01 CIAE-00 DODE-0 P11-05 H-02 INR-07 L-04 NSAE-00 NS-10 P-03 RSC-01 PRS-01 SS-2 CI USIA-12 AID-28 PC-04 , PSR- 01 ACDA-19 /138 W 069 955 R 02?2 055Z MAR 70 FM A-MEMBASSY QUITO TO SECST ATE WASHDC 8343 AMEMBASSY LIMA AMCON'SUL GUAYAQUIL USCINCSO LIMITED OFFICIAL USE QUITO 0831 USC INCSO FOR POLAD SUBJ: PORT ON THE AMAZON 1. IN ARMY DAY ADDRESS ON FEB 27 , PRESIDENT AGAIN REFERRED TO NEED FOR " HONORABLE TRANSACTION" WITH PERU WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ECUADOR WITH. PORT ON AMAZON. 2. COMMENT: PROPOSAL FOR PORT FIRST MADE PUBLICLY BY VELASCO ON ENTRY PRESENT TERM OFFICE. WHILE REPEATED SEVER AL TIMES BY PRESIDENT , NO EVIDENCE TO DATE THAT PRO-POSAL HAS BEEN R AISED WITH PERUVIANS THROUGH GOVERNMENT CHANNELS. PROPOSAL WOULD COMPREHEND AS BEST ECUADOREAN 'OFFICIALS CAN EXPLAIN PRESIDENT' S THINKING, PERUVIAN CESSA-TION STRIP OF LAND TO PORT (WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED ON NAVI.= GABLE REACH ONE OF' PRINCIPAL AMAZON TRIBUTARIES, MOST PROBABLY NAPO) . 3 RERUVIAN PUBLIC REACTION TO PORT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN - NEGATIVE IN PAST, AND ECUADOREAN OFFICIALS SAY FRANKLY THEY EK#,Ef4.,t LITTLE IF ANY RESPONSE FROM PRESENT PERUVIAN GOVERNMENT. INDED, CONCERN APPEARS BE BREWING HERE ABOUT INTENTIONS ITS 'PREDOMINANT' SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR AS INFORMATION ACCUMULATES LIMITED OFFICIAL 1,1,p, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2 DEPARTMENT OF STATE TELEGRAM CABLE SECRETARIAT DISSEM BY PER # TOTAL COPIES: REPRO BY FILE RF. MFG. 9/69 LIMITED OFFICIAL USE . 9AGE 02 ?pima -0s83 : 022232Z .THAT PERIjVIMIS CONTINUE UPGRADE .QUALITY THEIR ARMED ,FORCES .-AND! 2) MILITARY GOVERNMENT- FACES., INCREASING INTERNAL DIFFICULTIES,. pRESIDE,NT! S., SPEECH ON FEB 25 TO ENGINEER GRADUATES, AND: THAT OF MINDEF FOLLOWING:, DAY TO ARMY MILITARY ACADEMY GRADUAtES BOTH : EMPHASIZED NEED "INVIGORATE .ECUADOREAN ARMED : FORCES?. SOME NEW - EQUIPMENT IS ON -ORDER .(E.G.,? NAVAL . PATROL CRAFT),A.ND, ADDITIONAL LARGE PURCHASES CA N BE. ANT I CIF,iAT.ED MOVES, MODER NIZE ECUADOREAN' MIL IT AR Y RELATED 'BOTH ,NECESSITY REPLACE: OUTDATED, EQUIPMENT USD IMPROVE NAT I 0;NAL MILITARY DEFENSEIVE: CAPABIL IT Y. THUS, WE 'MAY HEAR MORE. OF "THREAT FROM 'SOUTH" . OVER 'COMING' MO NT FIB. T 0 'N LIMITED OFFICIAL USE flpe.lassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2 411,44 VA. ? 3 1141, Pp 1, -171, Ccitt st. t.) V:c6 (-`(/C4_744, 44, kuep44: e %IOC". ei THETHE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU By Georg Maier * There is a saying that when a dispute lasts for a long time, it must be about something small; for if it were not, it would be in the interest of the parties to settle it. This, however, is not the case in the boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru. The dispute is not only one of the major inter-national issues of Latin America, but it is also dangerous, because its long history has clothed it with considerations of national prestige and honor and because it involves a very considerable extent of territory with which neither country is willing to part. Up to the present day, the two countries have attempted to settle their differences through negotiations, treaties, arbi-trations and wars?only to revive them again and again. Even the 1942 Protocol of Rio de Janeiro, which seemed finally to have settled the dispute, was declared null and void by Ecuador in 1960. The area involved in the boundary controversy is very extensive and can be considered in three distinct parts: the territories of Tumbez, Jaen, and the Oriente. The smallest of the three is the territory about Tumbez which faces the Pacific Ocean between the Tumbez and Zarumilla Rivers. Ecua-dor's claim to this region (which is under the Peruvian flag) is based on the Royal Cedula of 1740.' The area is estimated at only 513 square miles. Second in size is the province of Jak or, as it is sometimes called, Jaen de Bracamoros. The region lies between the right bank of the Chinchipe River and the left bank of the Mara??n or Amazon. This area contains about 3,242 square miles. During colonial days, it was first a part of the Vice-royalty of Peru, and, later, of the Viceroyalty of New Granada, upon the latter's formation in 1739.2 The territories of Tumbez and Jaen have been subject to Peruvian sovereignty since 1822, the year Peru became an inde-*Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. 1 "Starting from the Tumbes on the Pacific Coast, the line follows along the ridges and other cordilleras of the Andes through the jurisdiction of Paita, and Piura to the Maranon, at 6 degrees, 30 minutes South Latitude, and on the interior, leaving to Peru the jurisdiction of Piura, Cajamarca, Moyobamba and Motilones; and by the cordillera of Jeveros, crossing the river Ucayali, at 6 degrees of South Latitude, up to the Javari or Jauri river at its confluence with the Carpi; and on the waters of the latter to Solimoes or the Amazonas and from thence down to the most westerly mouth of the Caqueta or Yapura, where the boundaries with Brazil begin." N. Clemente Ponce, Limites Entre Ecuador y el Peru. Memorandum Para el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la Republica de Bolivia 13 (3rd ed., Washington, D. C.: Gibson Brothers, 1921). 2Fray Enrique Vacas Galindo, ColecciOn de Documentos Sobre los Limites Ecua-toriano-Peruanos, Vol. I, p. 57 (Quito: Tipografia de la Escuela de Artes y Oficios por R. Ji.ramillo, 1902). 28 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01797Rnnn7nn1onni Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 ERU ist be .)f the spute inter-long r and vhich atries arbi-1942 ;pute, d can and which Ecua-ed on miles. en de River ' about Vice-the been inde-ridges to the 'ng to )y the le, up ers of 3sterly " N. Isterio D. C.: Eeua-)s por 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 29 pendent state. Whatever de jure rights Ecuador may have to these regions, de facto it does not dispute either one of them.s The Oriente is the third and largest of the parts in dispute and is esti-mated as having an area of 167,000 square miles. It is a triangular region between the head of navigation of tributaries to the Amazon on the west, the watershed between the Putumayo and Napo Rivers on the northeast, and the Chinchipe-Mara??n-Amazon Rivers on the south. The original maximum claim of Ecuador in the southern part of the Oriente was far to the south of the Mara??n River, a line running approximately parallel to it, and extending to the Javari River. This claim was based on colonial limits of the Viceroyalty of New Granada dated 1740, but was later changed to the more natural line of the Chinchipe-Mara??n-Amazon claimed in the Treaty of Guayaquil in 1829. The vast area of the Oriente has to a much larger extent been subject to the jurisdiction of Peru than to that of Ecuador. Parts of it have long continued under the military and political control of Peru, and have been organized into regular departments and districts of that republic. The far reaches of this region have been made more accessible to economic pene-tration by Peru than by Ecuador. The inability of Ecuador to compete effectively in this territorial contest with Peru has been due to the fact that this small nation, ill prepared for independence, has had no surplus of men or money to enable it to under-take to occupy all of the vast Oriente claimed to be part of the national domain. If properly developed, the Oriente may well become Ecuador's economic salvation. However, attempts on the part of the Ecuadorean Government to colonize and develop the region have met with little success and a large and potentially rich territory has remained virtually useless. Peru, on the other hand, the center of a rich and prosperous Spanish viceroyalty, possessed more resources, from independence to the present, to develop and exploit the disputed territories. The rubber boom at the turn of the century caused Peru to build more and better trails from the highland to the Amazon region, new communities were founded, commerce on the Amazon and its tributaries grew by leaps and bounds, and a flourish-ing international trade was under way. So marked has been the progress and development of the Amazon Basin, that it has become a very large factor in the economic life of Peru. To quote a Peruvian source: The ties that bind the Peruvian Amazon Basin to the rest of Peru are strong. To contemplate in imagination the possibility of Maynas being possessed by Ecuador suggests a troubled picture, for the unani-mous resistance from within Maynas itself against Ecuadorean sover-eignty would be devastating. No minority would lessen the resistance, for there are no Ecuadoreans in the region. Maynas is Peruvian.' S There is evidence of this in President Velasco Ibarra's Message to Congress on Aug. 10, 1961. In it he speaks about the border problem but only refers to it as "our Amazonian region." Ecuador: Message addressed by His Excellency, Doctor jos6 Maria Velasco Ibarra, Constitutional President of the Republic, to the Honorable National Congress, on August 10, 1961, P. 27. 4 Peru, The Boundary Line Between Peru and Ecuador 11 (Monograph from Peruvian Embassy, n.d.). Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 30 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 The actual occupation of the disputed Oriente for a long period lends much weight to the Peruvian claim to the region by the doctrine of prescrip-tion, recognized in internationl law and practical in international relations. Thus, while Ecuador appears to have a better de jure title to the Amazon region, Peru's claim rests on a strong de facto title. Somewhere between these two claims the solution to the almost one hundred and fifty-year-old boundary dispute may be found, and it is hoped that the two countries mai soon solve their problem. The conflicting territorial claims of Ecuador and Peru date back to colo-nial days and are due largely to the uncertainty as to the limits of colonial territorial divisions. In general, the territory of each of the Latin Ameri-can countries is that of the immediately preceding colonial administrative unit.6 This general principle has many exceptions, due to the indefinite-ness and overlapping of colonial jurisdiction and to inaccurate and insuffi-cient surveys. Under Spanish colonial administration, political authority was vested in the Viceroy (or captain general), the Audiencia (and its administrative subdivisions: the gobernaciones or gobiernos, alealdias mayores, corregimi-entes and alcaldias ordinarias), and the Church, with no clearly defined divisions of power among these institutions.6 Consequently, the Spanish officials were uncertain as to where their territorial jurisdiction exactly started and where it ended, an uncertainty which has a direct bearing on the confusion of titles of territory of the republics. The King of Spain, through the Council of the Indies, sent voluminous instructions to his overseas officials. These cedulas often involved the trans-fer of territory from one jurisdiction to another, but they were in many instances so ambiguous, inconsistent, or openly contradictory to other de-crees that the royal officials were unable to reconcile their instructions and thus left them unexecuted.7 The confusion was especially prevalent in out-lying regions such as the Amazon Basin, which forms the heart of the con-troversy between Ecuador and Peru. From a physiographical point of view, this region lacks decisive natural boundaries which would facilitate the drawing of political frontiers. From this shadow-land of overlapping and involved colonial political administration and of uncertain territorial jurisdiction, it is necessary to attempt to draw in general lines, and without much exactness, the bound-aries of the various colonial administrative units pertinent to the Ecua-dorean-Peruvian controversy. This calls for an examination of the bound-aries of the Viceroyalties of Peru and New Granada, and of the Audiencias of Lima and Quito. The Spanish dominion in the New World was originally divided into two great administrative areas: the Viceroyalties of New Spain (Mexico), 6 Isaiah Bowman, "The Ecuador-Peru Boundary Dispute," 20 Foreign Affairs 759 (July, 1942). 6 Charles H. Cunningham, The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies, "University of California Publications: History," Vol. 9, p. 5 (Berkeley, Calif.: University Of Cali-fornia Press, 1919). 7 Ponce, op. cit. 22. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 0 (D 0 (0 (.0 CD -0 (I) (D 0 %.< Es) (D Oh (D (T (.0 (D n.) n.) -o 0 co 0 n.) n.) 0 0 GALAPAGOS ISLANDS Itc) EI)Itr'' a.- 1:13. ? rn:;-/. 1E8. CD: CQL LI 0 SCALE 'CD 8 ti ? 4-c It It F' ECUADOR 200 KILOMETERS 0 (D 0 (.0 (/) 0 ? / N ? / . \ ...- .60 ? V 9 ? / A I ine, s, / it eStabi is ??.V(.2. i' ra / / . 0 by eh:: ciedemonu..- 7 SCa. \.. ?to \ ? / (be.."^ . I Ecuadorian-/ .._. .. a., Bra z i 1 i an Treaty e-stablished by the Treaty of Guayaquil, 1829 Boundary, 1904 PERU Source: Ecuador. El Ecuador y el Amazonas, Quito: Publicaciones del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, 1961, and Peru. El Fiel Cumplimiento de los Compromisos Con-traidos es Norma de Vida Civilizada, Lima: Editorial Minerva, n.d. 0 -0 co 0 7:1 0 0 0 0 0 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 32 Ti-IF AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [VOL 63 established in 1535, and that of Peru, established in 1542. These viceroyal-ties were subdivided into eleven audiencias: four in New Spain, and seven in Peru.8 At first, the Viceroyalty of Peru comprised the whole of South America except for the Portuguese colonies and the Comandancia General of Caracas, which was under the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo!' Of the seven audiencias, only the boundaries of the districts of Quito and that of Lima alone are pertinent to the study of the frontiers of Ecuador and Peru as they existed in colonial days. The Audienca of Quito was given the following boundaries by the Cedula of November/ 29, 1563: The Province of Quito shall have, as its districts, along the coast towards the city of Los Reyes, to the port of Paita exclusive, and on the interior to Piura, Cajamarca, Chachapoyas, Moyobamba and the Motilones exclusive, including towards the said port, the towns of Jaen, Valladolid, Loja, Zamora, Cuenca, La Zarza and Guayaquil, with all the other towns within their borders which form a part of their popu-lation; and towards the towns of Canela and Quijos, it shall have the said towns, with any others that may be discovered; and on the coast towards Panama, to the port of Buenaventura inclusive, and on the interior to Pasto, Popayan, Cali, Buga, Champanchica and Guarchi-cona . . . being bounded on the north by the Audiencia of Granada and Tierra Firme, on the south by the city of Los Reyes, on the west by the Southern Sea and on the east by provinces not yet discovered or civilized.i? The boundaries of the Audiencia of Lima were described as follows in the same Cedula of 1563: It shall have all the territory on the coast, from the City of Los Reyes to the Kingdom of Chile exclusive, and to the port of Paita in-clusive; and on the interior to San Miguel de Piura, Cajamarca, Cha-chapoyas, Moyobamba and Motilones inclusive, and to Callao exclu-sive by the boundaries fixed to the Royal Audiencia of La Plata and the City of Cuzco with their own inclusive, touching boundaries on the north with the Royal Audiencia of Quito, on the south with La Plata, on the west with the Southern Sea and on the east with the undiscov-ered provinces." The frontiers of the districts of the Audiencias of Lima and Quito can be ascertained from the descriptions in various colonial cedulas. The Lima boundary was designated by the word "inclusive" as the northern line of the Corregimiento of Piura and Paita and of the Provinces of Cajamarca, Chachapoyas, Moyobamba, and Motilones, until the line becomes indistin-8 The Viceroyalties of New Spain were Santo Domingo (1526), Mexico (1527), Guatemala (1543), and Guadalajara (1548) ; those under the Viceroyalty of Peru were Panama (1535, abolished in 1542 and re-established in 1563-64), Lima (1542), Santa I'd de Bogota (1549), Charcas (1559), Quito (1563, abolished 1717, and re-established 1723), Chile (1609) and Buenos Aires (1661). 9 Vicente Santamaria de Paredes, A Study of the Question of Boundaries Between Ecuador and Peru 55 (Trans. by Harry. Van Dyke; Washington, D. C.: Byron S. Adams, 1910). io Ponce, op. cit. 9. 11 /bid. 9-10. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011 Vol. 63 ceroyal-d seven f South General f Santo ricts of rontiers .ncia of aber 29, le coast and on and the Df Jaen, with all popu-lave the 'ie coast on the 1-uarchi-ranada he west covered 3 in the of Los aita in-a, Cha-? exclu-ta and on the Plata, , discov-can be Lima line of marca, distin-(1527), ,f Peru (1542), and re-letween iron S. 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 33 guishable in the unknown lands of the Amazon Basin. It will be noted that the boundary was described to include these Amazonian regions by the use of the word "inclusive." By way of contrast, the southern bound-ary of the Audiencia of Quito is largely defined by the word "exclusive" referring to the same territories (Piura, Cajamarca, etc.). From the view-point of Quito, its Audiencia embraced on the south the regions of Guaya-quil, Jaen, Loja, and Cuenca; and on the east, those of Canela and Quijos. This boundary line from the Pacific Coast to its vanishing point in the jungles of Amazonia was not a rigid frontier, for although the political jurisdiction of each audiencia was clearly delimited, ecclesiastical jurisdic-tion overran it in both directions. For example, the Audiencia of Quito in political and administrative matters was first subject to the Viceroy of Peru but came later under the tutelage of the Viceroyalty of New Granada when the latter was created by order of the King of Spain in 1717; in ecclesi-astical matters, however, it remained under the Archbishop of Lima. When the Viceroyalty of New Granada was abolished in 1722, Quito came under the jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of Lima only to change hands for the third time upon the re-establishment of the former in 1739. A year later the boundaries between the two viceroyalties were fixed in a clear and accu-rate way. The southern boundary of the Viceroyalty of New Granada was delineated in the following terms: Starting from Tumbez on the Pacific Coast, the line follows by the ridges and other cordilleras of the Andes through the jurisdiction of Paita, and Piura to the 1Vraraii6n, at 6 degrees, 30 minutes South Lati-tude, and on the interior, leaving to Peru the jurisdiction of Piura, Cajamarca, Moyobamba and Motilones ; and by the cordillera of Je-veros, crossing the river Ucayali, at 6 degrees of South Latitude, up to the Javari or Jauri river at its confluence with the Carpi; and on the waters of the latter to Solimoes or the Amazonas and from thence down to the most westernly mouth of the Caqueta or Yapura, where the boundaries with Brazil begin.12 This boundary line of 1740 was maintained until the turn of the century, as evidenced in numerous general maps and descriptive memorials which were produced at the request of the Viceroyalties of New Granada and Peru." With the turn of the century, a new factor entered the controversy, and precipitated incessant and unmitigated debate. This disturbing element, the, Cedula of July 15, 1802, issued by His Catholic Majesty Charles IV, separated for ecclesiastical purposes the provinces of Mainas and Quijos, except Papallacta, from the Viceroyalty of New Granada and transferred them, to the Viceroyalty of Peru.14 This decree was intended for the im-12 Ibid. 13. 13 Santamaria de Paredes, op. cit. 62-63. The original Cedula of 1740 was dis-covered by Dr. N. Clemente Ponce in 1894, up to which time Peru claimed not to know anything of its existence. El Comercio, Quito, Dec. 18, 1960, p. 5. 14 The partial text of the Cedula reads thus: "I am resolved to segregate, from the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe and the Province of Quito, and add to that Viceroyalty, the Government and Comandancia General of r'fd inParf - Saniti7ed Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 34 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 provement of the Spanish missions in the upper Amazon Basin (the region which today is known to Peruvians as the "Departments of Amazonas and Loreto," and to Ecuadoreans as the "Oriente"). This historic document is highly important, for it is upon its existence and fulfillment that the Republic of Peru bases her legal claim to the disputed region. The Cedula was a response to the result of two outstanding events: the banishment of the Jesuits by royal decree in 1767, and the advance of, /the Portuguese in the Upper Amazon.16 The expulsion of the Jesuit's by Charles III in 1767 caused widespread deterioration in all the Jesuit mis-sions, with the result that many parts of South America were less known and less civilized in 1850 than in 1750.16 It also caused a decline in Spanish authority in the Amazon regions and facilitated Portuguese penetration be-yond the line of demarcation." This aggression was promptly reported in 1799 by the boundary commission sent out by the King of Spain to survey the boundary in the northern sector in a report prepared by Francisco Requefia y Herrera. Francisco Requefia's report not only noted the Portuguese advance into Spanish territory but made recommendations accepted by the King, which have been interpreted by Peruvians as evidence of their claims to the terri-tory. In the first part, Requefia suggested that the Gobierno of Maynas should become a part of the Viceroyalty of Peru because the region could be reached much easier from Lima than from Quito. In the second part, he charged the priests who had replaced the Jesuits as totally unfit to care for the missions and recommended that all the missions should be entrusted to the "Colegio Apostolico de Santa Rosa de Ocopa," whose missions on the Huallaga and Ucayali Rivers had been very successful.16 In order to effect a degree of unity necessary to the development of the missions, he proposed in the third part of his report the establishment of a new Bishopric of alaynas under the jurisdiction of the Bishopric of Lima. The report was approved by the Council of the Indies in 1801, and the King of Spain issued the Cedula a year later. Mainas with the towns of the Government of Quijos (except Papallacta), they being all on the shores of the Napo River or in its immediate vicinity; thereby extending that Comandancia General, not only along the lower Maranon River to the frontiers of the Portuguese Colonies, but also on all the other rivers which empty into the Maraii6n from the north and south, such as the Morona Guallaga, Pastaza, Ucayali, Napo, Yavari, Putumayo, Yapura and other small streams, as far as the point where these same rivers cease to be navigable on account of their waterfalls and inaccessible rapids; also the towns of Lomas and Moyobamba should remain in the possession of the same Comandancia General, in order to uphold, as far as possible, the ecclesiastical and military jurisdiction of those territories." Ponce, op. cit. 14. 15 Fray Enrique Vacas Galindo, ExposiciOn Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos, Vol. I, pp. 119-127 (Quito: Tipografia de la Escuela de Artes y Oficios por R. Jaramillo, 1903). 16 Vacas Galindo, op. cit. note 2 above, Vol. I, pp. 153-161. 17 Vacas Galindo, Exposieion Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos, cited note 15 above, Vol. I, p. 132. 18By the Cedula of July 12, 1790, these were entrusted to the Franciscan Fathers of Quito. Vacas Galindo, Coleccion de Docuraentos Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano? Peruanos, Vol. I, pp. 114-115. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 ol. 63 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 35 !egion .s and inaent 3,t the s: the of the ts by t mis-cnown )anish on be-ted in .urvey ncisco e into which terri-aynas could rt, he ) care msted DS on ter to is, he opric eport .3pain The Ecuadoreans attack the claims of Peru based on the Cedula of 1802 on the ground that it did not separate the territory of Alaynas from the Viceroyalty of New Granada and add it to that of Peru; for the decree was merely intended as an administrative measure for eccle:.iastical purposes and did not signify formal transfer of political power. Furthermore, the decree merely "segregated" administrative "services," and not the terri-tory per se. In regard to the first contention (i.e., that the Cedula was essentially ec-clesiastical and not political), at first glance the argument appears plausi-ble, as Spanish domination of the upper Amazon region consisted largely of missions. These missions had preceded the establishment of civil govern-ment, but transfer disposition of the "gobierno" from one administrative unit to another would obviously require a change of episcopal administra-tion for the missions. Political and ecclesiastical organization in a province such as Maynas would naturally be so interrelated that a "political" decree (affecting the civil government) would necessarily appear as largely "ec-clesiastical." The reference to "Gobierno and Comandancia General of Maas" obviously means the civil branch of the government, and "juris-diction without territory for its exercise is incomprehensible." 19 The second contention (i.e., that the decree merely "segregated" admin-istrative "services" and not relevant territory) has more weight. It is al-leged that in colonial days changes in jurisdiction were often made without involving alteration of territory.20 It is further alleged that it was the custom of the Spanish Crown, when it ordered a change in territorial divi-sion, to be more definite about it.21 To quote the Peruvian Dr. Carlos Wiese: a distinction should be made between the Royal Cedulas of definite demarcation, properly so-called, and those others which only separated the political government, administration, military defense or similar function, from a Viceroyalty or Captaincy General. That is to say, the King of Spain united some provinces in a royal union and others only in a political union.22 being It is clear that Minister Requeria in his report of 1799 requested two ading separations: that of the government and that of the territory. However, ntiers the King, after making mention of Requefia's request in the first part of the o the Cedula, only ordered that the first should be carried out.23 "This should ayali, suffice to convince one that the Chinla of July 15, 1802, did not alter the where ssible territorial division between the two Viceroyalties." 24 on of " Dietamenes Juridicos Presentados a S. M. el Real Arbitro en la Memoria del stical Peru, Art. I, p. 48 (Madrid: 1906). /20-Honorato Vazquez, Memoria Histarica-Juridica Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-tanos, Peruanos 21 (2d ed., Quito: Imprenta Nacional, 1904). ;r R. 21L. A. Wright, "A Study of the Conflict Between the Republics of Peru and Ecuador," 98 Geographical Journal 258 (November?December, 1941). le 15 22 Ponce, op. cit. 20-21. 23 Modesto Chavez Franco, Cartilla Patria; Epitome de Historia y Geografia Ref-hers erentes a las Fronteras entre Ecuador y Peru de 1531 a 1921, p. 63 (Quito: Imprenta de ano- "El Dia," 1922). 24ponce, op. cit. 16. _ Ont-F - Ca niti7Pd CODV Approved for Release 2012/09/26 CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 36 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 Additional evidence that the Cedilla of 1802 was not intended to separate territory from New Granada is adduced from the cartography of the period. The eminent German scientist and geographer, Baron von Humboldt, de-fined the boundaries of Colombia in the terms of the Chinla of 1740.25 It can be argued that when von Humboldt completed his survey of jthe equa-torial regions by 1802, he may have been unaware of the existefice of the Chinla issued in the same year; however, subsequent cartogra-phers such as Restrepo (1827), Colton (1853), Blake (1854) and Villaicencio (1856), follow a demarcation similar to that of von Humboldt. The winning of independence from Spain did not put an end to the boundary controversy between Ecuador and Peru. The long process of emancipation, from the "first cry" in 1809 to the capitulation in Callao in 1826, profoundly affected Hispanic-American international relations, espe-cially in regard to boundaries. As all of Spanish America had been re-garded as the personal estate of His Catholic Majesty, no definite bounda-ries had been surveyed and marked between the colonies. Consequently, the new Latin American Republics formed themselves in general along the lines of the preceding colonial administrative unit, which was the Audiencia. In some cases two or more units joined to form a new international person-ality, as is the case with the Republic of Gran Colombia formed from the Audiencias of Santa Fe, Quito, and the Captaincy General of Caracas. In the case of the provinces of Guayaquil and Jaen, the artificial bonds of Spanish administration were disregarded, and the emancipated territories gravitated to the new republic with which each possessed the more natural affinity. To prevent fratricidal strife over what each republic believed to be its national boundaries, the doctrine of uti possidetis juris 26 of 1810, i.e., the possessory status quo of 1810, was drawn up. A corollary to this doctrine invoked the right of the provinces to attach themselves to whichever new republic they chose; and under this latter qualification of uti possidetis, Guaya uil became a part of Colombia, and Jaen of Peru. The Treaty of Bogota of 1811 is generally regarded as the origin of the principle of colonial uti possidetis in Latin America. By that treaty the United Provinces of Venezuela and the United Provinces of New Granada agreed to recognize and respect their boundaries as those possessed by the Captaincy General of Venezuela and the Viceroyalty of New Granada." Colombia maintained the principle, applying it to the year 1810. The same principle was enunciated in the unratified Mosquera-Galdeano Treaty be-25 Alexander von Humboldt and Aim 6 Bonpland, Personal Narratives of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America During the Years 1799-1804, Vol. I, p. 125 (Trans. and ed. by Thornasina Ross; London: Bell and Daldy, 1871). 26 The doctrine of uti possidetis is based upon Roman law and has been adopted in international law to designate the principle of the possessory status of territories. It is in this sense that the principle of uti possidetis has been adopted by all the Latin American nations as the basis for the settlement of their boundary disputes. The latter term is applied to peace treaties confirming conqueror's possession in absence of specific treaty provision. 27 Santaraaria de Paredes, op. cit. 270. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 63 rate iod. de-It Iua-the a as 56), the 3 Of o in spe-, re-nda-, the Lines In 'son-the In s of >ries ural its the :ine iew 'tis, the the Ida the a.27 me he-125 in It tin 11,7he 1, tee 1969] T-Frg BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETTVEFN ECUADOR AND PERU 37 tween Colombia and Peru in 1823, in the Treaty of Giron, March 28, 1829, after the Peruvian defeat at Portete de Tarqui, and in the definitive treaty of peace, signed at Guayaquil on September 22, 1829. The doctrine of uti possidetis is contained in many other Hispanic-American documents, and even Simon Bolivar considered it inviolable.28 The doctrine of "Uti Possidetis of 1810" is clear and reasonable; but its application has been a matter of extraordinary difficulty. In studying its application to the boundary controversy between Ecuador and Peru, one must be aware of widely divergent modes of interpretation adopted by the two countries. Publicists and protagonists of both nations unite to praise the general principle; but Peruvians interpret the doctrine as ``subsequent to the gaining of independence" 29 and therefore in the light of the Cedula of 1802, while Ecuadoreans interpret it as " uti possidetis prior to in-dependence,' "? thereby bringing in the Cedulas of 1563, 1717, 1739, and 1740. The period from 1822 to 1829 marked the consummation of the indepen-dence movement and the parting of ways between Colombia and Peru. In-dependence from Spain was gained by both nations in this period, but hopes of SimOn Bolivar, the Liberator, for a federation never materialized. Sub-sequently, an exchange by the two nations of proposals on the boundary question not only failed to solve the problem, but the dispute intensified and war broke out in 1829. Colombia was the victor. The Treaty of Guayaquil which was the result of Colombia's victory over Peru brings us to the very core of the boundary controversy. It shares, along with the Cedula of July 15, 1802, the distinction of being the legal basis for claim to the disputed area. In Article V the treaty provided that "both parties acknowledge as the limits of their respective territories, those belonging to the ancient Viceroyalties of New Granada and Peru prior to their in-dependence with such variations as they deem it convenient to agree upon . . . ," 31 and in Article VI, that a boundary commission shall fix said limits. In the second conference, Minister Gual of Colombia proposed that the boundary between the two countries be drawn according to those fixed by the Cedulas of 1717 and 1739.32 The Peruvian Plenipotentiary gave his consent to this proposal and suggested that it would be better for both parties if the boundary line were drawn along the Tumbez-Chinchipe-Marafion line. This proposal by Peru was a natural one and is in keeping 28 In his letter of Feb. 21, 1825, to Marshal (then General) Sucre, regarding the five northern provinces of Argentina, he said: "Neither you, nor I, nor the Peruvian Congress itself, nor the Colombian, can break or violate the basis of public law which we have recognized in America. This basis is that the republican governments are founded within the bounds of the old viceroyalties, captaincies general, or presidencies as that of Chile." Vicente Lecniia, Cartas del Libertador, Vol. IV, p. 263 (Caracas: Litografia y Tipografia del Cothercio, 1929). 29 Santamarla de Paredes, oj. cit. 275. 30 Ibid. H. Woolsey, "Te Ecuador-Peru Boundary Controversy," 31 A.J.I.L. 98-99 (1937). 52Ponce, op. cit. 48. e, Annroved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 38 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 with the growing feeling that the Maralion was the logical boundary in the Amazon Basin. The Colombian Minister expressed his pleasure at the pro-posal and said that both countries were approaching the desired point of reconciliation. The Tumbez-Chinchipe-Mararion proposal was a diplomatic victory for Peru, as it gave that country more territory (as well as access to the Marafion River) than did the Cedillas of 1717 and 1739.33 The treaty, duly drawn up and ratified by both countries, provides for a clear and unambiguous definition of the boundary as that of the Viceroyal-ties of Peru and New Granada in 1739, with reciprocal cessions to effect a most natural and easily defined frontier. That the boundary was under-stood to be that of "Tumbez-Chinchipe-Maralion" is clearly seen in the opinion (dietamen) rendered by the "Comision Diplomatica" of Peru in forwarding the treaty to the Congress for its approval (October 14, 1829).34 This line is alleged by the Commission to be more advantageous to Peru than the "Uti Possidetis of 1809." With this in view, the Commission pro-posed that the treaty be approved without alteration. This was done by the Peruvian Congress on October 16, 1829. No doubt exists as to the validity of the Treaty of Guayaquil. It was duly signed by the plenipotentiaries of the two countries and ratified by both governments. Serious doubts are alleged regarding its present va-lidity and its pertinency in the present boundary controversy between Ecuador and Peru. The contention that the treaty is no longer in force rests upon three general points: first, that it provided no definite statement on boundaries, the exact definition being left to a Joint Boundary Com-mission which never met; second, that one party to the treaty has ceased to exist since the division of Colombia in 1830 into three independent repub-lics, Venezuela, New Granada, and Ecuador; and third, that the treaty was superseded by the Treaty of July 12, 1832, between Peru and Ecuador." As for the first point, it appears evident that the Joint Boundary Com-mission provided for in Article VI was to survey the line described in Article V, and that it was empowered to make such rectifications and varia-tions as in its judgment would be necessary to create a natural frontier be-tween the two countries. It is hard to conceive that the whole boundary question was referred to the Commission and that therefore the treaty's validity is affected. In this connection, the Protocol of August 11, 1830, signed by the Peru-vian Foreign Secretary Pedemonte and the Colombian Minister at Lima, General Mosquera, can be considered. Under the Protocol, Peru was given title to Maynas by virtue of the Cedula of 1802, a claim which was not allowed by the Colombian interpretation of Articles V?VII of the Treaty of Guayaquil. As a result, the Tumbez-Maralion line was agreed upon, with 33 Present-day Ecuadorean maps erroneously show an identical boundary line for the Treaty of 1829 and that fixed by the Royal Cedulas of 1717 and 1739. Roberto Crespo Ordofiez, El Descubrimiento del Amazonas y los Derechos Territoriales del Ecuador 5 (Cuenca :Nucleo del Azuay de la Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 1961). 34 Vacas Galindo, Coleccien de Doeumentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 265-267. 35 M. F. de Martens, Memoire Sur l'Arbitrage Entre le Peron et l'Equateur 53 (Paris: A. Pedone, 1906). Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 d.. 63 a the pro-at of natic ss to for a .oyal-!ect a nder-a the ru in 29) .34 Peru t pro-le by t vvas :d by t va-,ween force ment Corn-ed to pub-was r.35 Com-d in aria-r be-dary 'Ay 's 'eru-Jima, iven not 'y of with r the 'respo lor 5 r 53 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 39 the issue unsettled as to whether the Chinchipe or Huancabamba River should be used for the middle section of the frontier.36 The authenticity of this document is strongly defended and also strongly impugned. Its existence was not mentioned by Colombia until 1892 and only in 1904 was it disclosed to Ecuador.37 From this date on, it has had an important bearing on Ecuador's case despite the fact that Peru calls it a forgery. As L. A. Wright says: In effect, the Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol is by no means essential to her case. Even if all that is claimed of it could be proved, it could do no more than give evidence for an intention on the part of Peru, and this intention is clearly established by other proofs. If it is clear on the one hand that Mosquera did not set his hand to any boundary arrangement binding on Peru, it is equally clear that his mission was a success in that it had the effect of showing what Peru thought and hoped for at that time, of showing that she was ready to give up Tumbez, that she was determined at all cost to hold on to Jaen, and that she was prepared to consent to an unfavorable division of Maynas, taking the Mara??n as a boundary. And this is enough to upset the Peruvian contention "that Tumbez, Jaen, and Maynas were an integral part of Peru since the time of her Constitution in 1823." 38 The second allegation as to the validity of the Treaty of Guayaquil is based upon the fact that one of the parties to the contract ceased to exist when the Republic of Colombia disappeared as a national personality. Ac-cording to the doctrine of the succession of states, however, Ecuador is without question the successor to the former Colombia boundary on the south. This is evidenced by her assumption 912._p2rtion of the debt_of Colombia as of December 31, 1829, _and by the fact that she received a pro rata share of the debt owed by Peru to Colombia as a consequence of -C-Cilombian expenditures on Peruvian soil in the campaign of 1822-1824. The third allegation is that the Treaty of 1829 was voided, at least as far ? as the Ecuadorean-Peruvian boundary is concerned, by the Treaty of Amity and Alliance of 1832. In Article XIV of this treaty, it was stated that "while negotiating a convention for the adjustment of boundaries between the two states, the present boundaries should be recognized." 39 Basing its contention on this article, Peru has tried to imply that tIA,Tzeaty of 1832 nullified that of 1829, but no such statement is found in .the-a-eaty. Fur-thermore, although it was duly ratified by both governments, the ratifica-tions were never exchanged. It is therefore impossible to construe the Treaty of 1832 as rendering the Treaty of Guayaquil null and void. If it could be substantiated that the Treaty of 1832 was ever in force, its bound-ary provision contained in Article XIV would have to be interpreted as a confirmation of the boundary provided for in the Treaty of Guayaquil. 36 Ram% de Delmar y de Olivart, Marqu6s de Olivart, La Frontera de la Antigua Colombia con el Peru: Contribucion al Estudio de la Cuesti6n de Limites entre el Ultimo y el Ecuador 137-138, 151-152, 161-162 (Madrid: Establecimiento Tipografico "Sucesores de Rivadeneyra," 1906). 37 Wright, /oc. cit. 265. 38 Mid. 39 Ibid. 266. No-r6 in Dmrl? - Ca niti7Rd Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 40 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 If, however, the Treaty of 1832 were never in force, it would have no bear-ing on the Treaty of Guayaquil which stands as a valid obligation between the Republic of Peru and the successors of Old Colombia. Almost a century and a half has passed since the Treaty of July 12, 1832, provided a status quo recognition of boundaries between Ecuador and Peru pending the achievement of a definite settlement. It has been a century and a half of sporadic efforts and failures, of mutual suspicion and inter-mittent ill will, of strained relations and the clash of arms. Although neither country was idle in its attempt to exercise jurisdiction over the territory that both claimed, no negotiations were carried on for a period of eight years. In 1840 Ecuador became suspicious of the long quiet and set up a demand that the boundaries should be fixed along the lines set by the Treaty of Guayaquil. Peru denied that the latter was in force: so far as she was concerned, only the Treaty of 1832 was valid. As a consequence, a set of conferences was arranged, not all of which tended to improve the relations of the two republics. In 1853 the Peruvians set up a political and military government in Loreto (Maynas). They quoted the Cedula of 1802 as the basis of the Peruvian claim to the entire region. Ecuador answered with a declaration of the Congress in Quito on November 26, 1853, which dealt with the freedom of navigation on a number of tribu-taries of the Amazon. Peru registered a protest claiming that the territory in question was part of Peru by the Cedula of 1802. Ecuador replied that it regarded the Cedula of 1802 as having no validity, and nothing more was said or done by either side until 1857.4? In that year another diplomatic flurry was created by Ecuador, which attempted to liquidate its foreign debt by selling unused territory_ to some British bondholders. This met with resistance from Peru, as part of the territory in question was claimed by her under the Cedula of 1802. The move proved unsuccessful and the United States and Great Britain hur-riedly withdrew from the transaction when they realized the controversial nature of the territory their nationals were to receive under the contracts.42 The friction over the boundary question intensified the already bitter feelings between the two republics. On October 26_ 1858, Peru declared a blockade along, the entire coast of Ecuador. The war which lasted until 1860 was waged on a small scale, due to the Peruvian control of access to the sea and the chaotic conditions of Ecuadorean politics. The war was climaxed by the Treaty of Mapacingue, January 25, 1860, which empha-sized the validity of the Peruvian title in accordance with the provisions of the Codula of 1802, and likewise declared null and void the Ecuadorean adjudication of lands in the Oriente to British bondholders.42 The Treaty was ratified by President Castillo of Peru and General Franco of Ecuador. It was disap nizzeA, hoIygye_r,,by the P,eruvian ,Congress, and the Constitu-tional Government of Ecuador, which replaced General Franco, did like-wise. 40 Vaeas Galindo, Coleecion de Doeumentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 387-399. 41 'Wright, loc. cit. 267. 42 Vacas Galindo, Coleecion de Doeumentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 417-437. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 1. 63 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 41 bear-ween 1832, Peru tury titer-ction for a long ..); the as in ? As .nded ts set uoted itaber tribu-7itory 1 that e was which some if the The hur-ersial acts." bitter tred a until ess to r was mpha-ons of lorean Preaty uador. astitu-1 like-For a period of twenty-six years, comparative quiet and great politeness were maintained between the two countries. In 1887 the Espinoza-Bonifaz Convention was signed, and ratified a year later. This convention provided that "the pending questions of boundaries between both nations should be submitted to the King of Spain as 'Arbitrator of Points of Law' defini-tively and without appeal." 43 In ease the King of Spain refused to act as arbitrator; the President of France, the King of Belgium, and the Council of the Swiss Federation, in the order named, were to be asked to serve as arbitrator. The two countries had to present their ease before the arbi-trator within a year of his acceptance. Article VI provided that direct negotiations might be undertaken simul-taneously with the arbitral proceedings, and as a result, the Garcia-Herrera Treaty was signed on May 2, 1890. In this treaty both countries attempted to reach an equitable settlement by modifying their extreme claims and recognizing their respective rights in the Amazon Basin. Under the ar-rangements made by the two plenipotentiaries, Peru was to receive Tumbez, Jaen and the parts of Maynas where she held establishments. To Ecuador were awarded the zones of the Maynas General Command which lay close to her, Macas, Quijos, and also the northern strip next to Colombia's frontier which usually goes by the name of Sucumbios Missions and which encloses Canelos. Peru felt that her plenipotentiary had made too large concessions; never-theless, she ratified the treaty with reservations. Ecuador, which had also ratified the treaty, insisted that Peru should do so unconditionally. This the Congress of Peru refused to do and Ecuador withdrew its ratification on July 25, 1894. It seems unfortunate that the treaty was not ratified as signed, for the compromise appeared to be an equitable settlement of this troublesome boundary question. The extreme claims of both sides were modified materially, and the rights of both countries in the Amazon Basin were recognized. The provisions of the Garcia-Herrera Treaty caused Colombia's entrance the dispute. She alleged that, if it were fulfilled, territory claimed by her would be affected. The three governments, therefore, signed the Sup-plemental Arbitral Convention of December 15, 1894.44 By this conven-tion Colombia became a party to the arbitration before the King of Spain, who was to consider the question not only as a matter of law, but also as one of accommodation between the contracting parties. Ecuador refused to approve the convention, feeling that Colombia and Peru would undergo irresistible temptations to settle their differences by dividing the Oriente between them.45 In 1904 Ecuador and Peru agreed to ask the King of Spain to proceed with the arbitration, which had been suspended, and to appoint a commis-sion to study the material bearing upon the boundary issue. The King 43 Arbitrator of Points of Law serves as translation of " Arbitro de Derecho " which apbears in the original text. 44 Vacas Galindo, Colecci6n de Documentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 468-601. "Wright, be. cit. 269. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 42 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 accepted the role of arbitrator and sent Ramen Menendez Pidal as his spe-cial commissioner to South America. On January 22, 1908, Menendez Pidal presented the King of Spain with a report in which the proposed boundary changes were favorable to Peru. In the year 1909 there was increasing uneasiness among Ecuadoreans that their case before the Royal Arbitrator was not going well. In his message to the National Congress on August 20, 1910, President Eloy Alfaro de-clared: Since the time of my first administration, there have been rumors which were not favorable to us as regards the decision which Spain was going to pronounce; these were to such an extent that a notable Central American diplomat who came from Madrid was not afraid to state that the decision would be entirely adverse to Ecuador. I received this in-formation in 1900 from General Leonidas Plaza, who came from Costa Rica, and I used it within my power to free the country from such a peril." These fears were crystallized in a conversation between Spanish Minister of State Juan Perez Caballero and Victor M. Rendon, Minister of Ecuador in Madrid. In this conversation, the Spanish Minister is alleged to have said that the natural boundaries of Ecuador were in the eastern range of the Andes, and that Ecuador should content herself with being the South American Switzerland.47 Ecuadoreans became greatly alarmed by such in-formation and the special plenipotentiary of the country, Honorato Vaz-quez, made great efforts to secure a copy of the dissenting opinion of Sanchez Roman, one of the Spanish counselors. Upon procuring it, Mr. Vazquez had it printed and circulated. A very unfortunate and embarrassing situation was created through such advance notice of the findings of the King's counselors. Uprisings oc-curred in both Ecuador and Peru, and war between the two countries seemed imminent. Actual hostilities were, however, averted by two fac-tors: first, by the timely offer of mediation by the Governments of Argen-tina, Brazil, and the United States, who pointed out that it would be "Un-American" to fight about a cause which was still up for arbitration; 48 and second, by the indefinite postponement of the arbitral award on the part of the King of Spain.49 The prolonged efforts on the part of the mediating Powers to reach a settlement proved disappointing, primarily because Ecuador and Peru did not share the confidence which the above-mentioned Powers were especially desirous to inspire through their friendly action. For more than a decade (1910-1924), there is no record of an attempt to settle the dispute. In 1924 the statesmen of both nations undertook to devise a new procedure by which the dispute might come to an end. Thus, the mixed formula came into being. It was conceived by the eminent Peruvian President Billing-46 1910 U. S. Foreign Relations 434 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1915). 47 Ibid. 430. 49 Wright, be. cit. 269. 49 1910 U. S. Foreign Relations 491. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 63 pe-lez ed tat ge le-DTS :as cal iat in-ita I a of in iid the ith in-AR-of ?Ir. ich oc-ac-, 2n-Jn-nd of 1. a lid lly tde In by rrie rig-Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 43 hurst in 1913 and was crystallized and defined in the Ponce-Castro Oyan-guren Protocol signed in Quito on June 21, 1924. This Protocol provided that direct negotiations be undertaken in Washington. In the event that the negotiations should fail, the Governments of Ecuador and Peru should determine by common accord tile zones that were mutually recognized by each of the parties and that which should be submitted to the arbitral de-cision of the President of the United States.5? In accordance with the provisions established in the Protocol of 1924, the two countries began direct negotiations in Lima in 1929. Internal diffi-culties caused by the fall of the Leguia government brought the negotia-tions to a standstill. In 1933 Peru proposed the resumption of the talks, but new difficulties ensued during the course of the conferences, and the negotiations were therefore transferred to Washington. Regular sessions were held at different intervals for a period of two and a hall years, but a satisfactory outcome was not produced. Incredible as it may seem, the already long-standing controversy became more acute as the conference ad-vanced, and a solution to the problem appeared more difficult than ever before. The sessions in Washington were finally broken off October 4, 1938,21 and small-scale fighting was conducted by the border patrols of the two coun-tries. On July 15, 1941, the skirmishes developed into an undeclared but real war. A brief and uneven struggle ensued between the well-equipped and highly trained Peruvian army and air force units and the almost de-fenseless Ecuadoreans. The climax of the war came in the battle of Zaru-milla-Chacras in which the Peruvian Colonel Manuel Odria52 decisively defeated the Ecuadorean forces who soon thereafter laid down their arms. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, the United States, Brazil, and Argentina offered their friendly services as mediators. At the Conference of Western Hemisphere Foreign Ministers which met in Rio de Janeiro in January, 1942, the so-called "Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Bounda-ries" 53 was drawn up and signed by the Foreign Ministers of the contract-ing parties and those of the mediatory Powers, to which Chile was added. Subsequently the Protocol was ratified, the Peruvian legislature voting for it unanimously, while an extraordinary Congress in Ecuador approved it on a plurality basis. The boundary line which the Protocol provided for not only caused Ecuador to lose two-thirds of the Oriente she had previously considered hers but also deprived her of an outlet to the Amazon River. In spite of this loss, however, there grew the general feeling that the once insoluble 50 Francisco Tudela, The Controversy Between Peru and Ecuador 41 (Trans. Lima: Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1941). 51 Earl Beyerleber, "Last American Boundary Dispute," 105 World Affairs 128 (June, 1942). 52 Manuel Odria's successful military campaign against Ecuador gave him the great-est prestige in Peru. His wartime association proved useful to him seven years later, when he staged a military coup d '?t and emerged as dictator of Peru. Tad Szulc, Twilight of the Tyrants 171-172 (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1959). 53 56 Stat. 1821; 36 A.J.I.L. Supp. 168 (1942). Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy A proved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8001297R000700120011-2 44 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 conflict had finally been settled to the satisfaction of both countries. But this was not to be so. For the past two and a half decades, Ecuador has continually revived the boundary question, claiming that as the weaker country it had little choice but to accept the outcome of the Conference. As all the sacrifices were unilaterally hers, Ecuador considers the 1942 Protocol an imposition and not a treaty. In the early fifties, Ecuadoreans were calling for a revision of the Protocol because it was unjust and im-posed." And even in 1953 Emilio Murillo Ordoiiez called the Rio Pro-tocol "unexecutable and null." 55 On September 8, 1955, Ambassador Jos?hiriboga Villagomez of Ecua-dor submitted a note to the Council of the Organization of American States invoking the Rio Treaty and requesting that the Council convoke a Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Ecuador charged that the Government of Peru was endangering the territorial integrity, sover-eignty, and independence of Ecuador by concentrating its forces on the border and by stationing naval vessels near the Ecuadorean coastline. The Council held a special meeting in which it was noted that Ecuador had as, ?ready submitted the matter to the Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States?the four guarantor states of the Rio Prot?col of 1942. It was informed that representatives of the guarantor states were planning to launch an on-the-spot investigation of the charges and there-fore decided to defer to the guarantor states. Due to this development, the Rio Treaty was not applied to the controversy and Ecuador withdraw its request.56 On August 17, 1960, President Jos?aria Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador again revived the boundary issue. In an address in the city of Riobamba, he affirmed: "The Rio de Janeiro Protocol is null. We do not want war. But we will never ackno\Niectge the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro." 57 On Sep-tember 28, 1960, the head of the Ecuadorean Delegation to the United Na-tions, Jose Chiriboga Villagomez, addressed the General Assembly in order to create "an atmosphere of sympathetic understanding for Ecuador's just cause." In nullifying the Treaty,58 Velasco Ibarra referred to the Pan American Pacts of 1933 and 1938, which "condemn the acquisition of terri-tory by military occupation or any other means of force by another state, directly or indirectly, on any ground whatever." Re even quoted the President of Peru as having recognized that the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro was the result of a military victory in 1941 made with a strong hand. While Ecuador has been attempting to attract world-wide attention to 64 Lilo Linke, Ecuador: Country of Contrasts 180 (3rd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1960). 66 Emilio Murillo Ordoilez, El Protocol? de Rio de Janeiro y sus Consecuencias en los Rios Cenepa, Morona y Marafion 8 (Cuenca: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriaua, Nucleo del Azuay, 1953). 56J. Lloyd Mecham, The United States and Inter-American Security: 1889-1960, p. 407 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961). 67 Demetrio Aguilera Malta, "El Prololema Limitrofe Ecuatoriano-Peruano," ?116 Cuadernos Americanos 38-40 (Mayo-Juni? de 1961). 68 Message to Congress, 1961, op. cit. 26. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01797Rnnn7nn1onni n Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 )1. 63 But r has ;aker -ence. 1942 reans I im-Pro-Ecua-3tates ;eting 1 that sover-a the The ad al-Chile, col of were there-at, the aw its uador Jamba, A war. n Sep-ed Na-order ''s just te Pan E terri-r state, -ed the Taneiro id. tion to Oxford is en los ? Nucleo 89-1960, 'o,' 116 1969] TEE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 45 the boundary dispute, Peru has remained comparatively calm.59 As far as the latter country is concerned, the dispute was definitely settled by the Rio Protocol of 1942. Peruvian sentiment on the subject was recently summed up by its Charg?'Affaires in Washington, who, in referring to the Rio Protocol, stated: . . . This document constitutes a valid, current and binding interna-tional Treaty which is further guaranteed not only by Argentina, Chile and Brazil but also by the United States. These four Powers uphold the Treaty as they consider that it is fully within the terms of inter-national law and that it furthermore reconciles the legitimate aspira-tions and the historic titles of both Peru and Ecuador. This Treaty confirmed the sovereignty of Peru on a land that has always been Peru-vian and constitutes one of the pillars of peace and legal order in the Hemisphere.6? Thus, Peru considers the whole affair settled and contends that there is no border dispute with Ecuador. This is reflected in the postwar literature on the subject. Peruvians have written comparatively little on the bound-ary controversy since 1942, and have in most eases contented themselves in defending their views whenever a particularly sharp verbal or written at-tack has been made by Ecuadoreans or those sympathetic to Ecuador's cause. Ecuador, on the other hand, has continuously attacked the Protocol which it considers void. Ecuadoreans show particular resentment towards the United States. To them, the United States Government favored Peru in the settlement of the dispute in order to avoid an unfavorable impact on U.S. commercial interests in Peru, especially those in oil." As a result Ecuador has turned towards Brazil for support in its cause. Brazil is the only country bordering with Ecuador which has shown no desire to expand. Furthermore, Ecuador and Brazil signed an agreement in 1958 which calls for, the construction of a combined vehicle and river-transportation route connecting the Pacific port of San Lorenzo with the Atlantic port of Belem. / Although this so-called Inter-Oceanic Highway is still in the planning stage, it will open up hitherto unexploited land and enhance the economic po-sition of both countries. A similar project, the marginal forest highway, was proposed by Peru's President Fernando Belaunde Terry in 1963. This highway would run across the eastern slopes of the Andes and extend roughly from Cucuta, Colombia, to Santa Cruz, Bolivia, a distance of about 3,720 miles. The proposed highway will undoubtedly be of great economic significance to the four countries which it will cross. As it will run through the territory which Ecuador lost as a result of the Rio Protocol, however, political re-percussions will certainly develop. The highway, once completed, will 59 According to Peru, the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro gave her nothing that she did not own by virtue of her historical titles and it took away from Ecuador nothing that Ecuador possessed before the difficulties which led to the signing of the treaty. Peru, The Boundary Line Between Peru and Ecuador, op. cit. 4. 80 The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1967. "La Cane, Quito, No. 350, Nov. 22, 1963, p. 22. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 46 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63 help strengthen Peru's de facto title to this territory, thus further mini-mizing Ecuador's chances of eventually recovering it. Ecuadoreans are fearful of this possibility, although they approve of the project. They have shown further concern that, in the process of constructing the high-way, Peru might use it as a "Corridor of Expansion" and that "the cater-pillar tracks of tractors are mixed up with those of tanks." 62 Such dis-trust is obviously not conducive to the construction of the highway but it does generally reflect Ecuadorean-Peruvian relations at present. As long as this distrust persists, little will and can be accomplished in bringing about a settlement which will be to the satisfaction of both countries. From an historical perspective, the de jure title of Ecuador based upon the colonial decrees of 1563, 1739, and 1740, plus the Treaty of Guayaquil, appears to be better than that of Peru. Peru, on the other hand, has a strong de facto title to part of Tumbez and to all of Jaen by the adhesion of those regions to the country in the movement for independence, and in all subsequent national history, and to a large part of Maynas, due to long occupation and development of the regions. Somewhere betweei>tlm ex-tremes of these de jure and de facto claims lies an equitable solution of the boundary dispute. Instead of searching for an equitable solution, how-ever, the two countries have shown greater interest in exploiting the issue both on the national and international level. As long as this persists, the boundary dispute will remain a vexatious issue in the lives of twentieth-century Ecuadoreans and Peruvians and will show Hemispheric solidarity to be only an expression of sentiment. 62 Revista Militar de las Fuerzas Armadas Ecuatorianas, No. 2 (June, 1965), pp. 60-61. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2 C: Ili Fi f;: Th

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews